【Abstract】The paper， based on language acquisition theories， discusses their similarities and differences from comparing childrens L1 acquisition and adults second language acquisition， and derives some implications for EFL education.

【Key words】Childrens L1 acquisition； adults SLA， similarities； difference； implications.

【作者簡介】江苗（1987-），女，漢族，江西贛州人，廣州南洋理工職業(yè)學(xué)院外國語學(xué)院，碩士，講師，研究方向：英語教學(xué)，應(yīng)用語言學(xué)。

1. Introduction

Numerous evidences show that childrens first language （L1） acquisition is effortless and successful mostly， but adults second language acquisition （SLA） painful and turn out to lack of success in most cases. Therefore， the field of childrens L1 acquisition gains much interest of linguists in SLA research and EFL teachers. The research on childrens L1 acquisition has profound influence in the SLA. It can be a starting point for us to improve English teaching and learning. This paper mainly discusses similarities and differences between childrens L1 acquisition and adults SLA， and derives some implications from the discussion.

2. Similarities

2.1 Development Patterns

Childrens L1 acquisition and adults SLA may go through similar stages. The development patterns—silent period， formulaic speech and structural and semantic simplification， bear resemblances （Ellis， 1994）. A silent period is necessary for children and adults， and structural and semantic simplification appear both in Childrens L1 acquisition and adults SLA at the early development stages. Although there are many variables in different learners in L1 acquisition， for example， the rapidity of language development， overall， children has a silent period in which they experience the rules and use of a language via listening before they start to produce complete utterances.

Both native speakers and second language acquirers produce Formulaic speeches at the early stages. It is the whole utterances learnt as “memorized chunks”， e.g. “I hope so” or“partially unanalyzed utterances with one or more open slots”， e.g. “would like to ____？”（Ellis，1999）. Structural and semantic simplification takes place in both. Articles， auxiliary verbs and the suffixs like –es， -ed are usually removed in simplified structures. And “content words—nouns， verbs， adjective and adverbs” usually are removed in simplified semantic （p.89）

For example： school = She is at school.

go？ = Shall we go？

So first language acquirers and second language acquirers share the similar development pattern.

2.2 Natural order

Some similarities can be found in sequence of childrens L1 acquisition and adults SLA. The natural order of them can be predicted. The acquisitions of bound morphemes， or factors are earlier than others in both. For example， the sign of progressive tense -ing and the plural marker /s/ were acquired much earlier than the singular form in third person /s/ and the possessive /s/（Brown， 1973）.

3. Differences

The differences between the two will be discussed in detailed based on Critical Period Hypothesis， Fundamental Difference Hypothesis and Input Hypothesis.

3.1 Age

The incidence of native-like competence is very low among adults of SLA， which may be explained by Critical Period Hypothesis （CPH） （Lennenberg， 1967）. Children are better language learners who can achieve easily a success in a second language， while adults cannot usually or very difficult to do that， especially in the term of accent. Normally， children can attain “absolute success” （Slinker， 1972）-- the native-like proficiency and competent， whereas it is not the case for the majority of adults in SLA. Moreover， children have more advantages in acquiring the accent than adults or teenager. Foreign accent may occur among adults even children， if they expose to a second language later （Flege. etal.， 1999）.

3.2 Accessibility to UG

（1）Full access to UG in Childrens L1 Acquisition.

UG serves in L1 acquisition and it has been considered to be “guiding force” in childrens L1 acquisition by many for a long time and “genetic blueprint” which determines the types of grammar （White， 2003）. It constitutes the childs initial state. Children acquire the first language with finite stimulus and experience， but they can produce and process infinite sentences. It is the innate language faculty that fills in the gap. In most instances， no information concerning perfect utterance， or information only about the imperfect utterance， is available to children （Gass & Selinker， 2008）. It is impossible for children to build the success of the first language successfully only on the input data. The core factor is UG which lies in “the poverty of the stimulus”， while input data is only trigger.

（2）No access to UG in adults SLA

The basic idea of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis （Bley-vorman， 1989） is the adults second language learner constructs “a pseudo-UG” through the knowledge of first language， which is considered to mediate the knowledge of UG in SLA. Hence， different from the role of UG in childrens L1， UG cannot access to adults SLA. Adults make use of pre-existing knowledge of their native languages to acquire a second language. Namely， the L1 mediates adults SLA， which aids code switching.

Motivation is “the second strongest predictor” which just follows the aptitude （Skehan， 1989）. Different motivation impacts the results of adults SLA， but not on childrens L1 acquisition. The Affective Filter from Krashen （1982） can explain the occurrences of fossilization. Childrens motivation to acquire the L1 is very strong， for acquiring native languages can help them to express their needs and understand the world around them. They start to acquire unconditionally without judgment and anxiety. But it is not the case in adults SLA. Adults face lots of anxiety due to some factors， e.g. communication pressure， evaluation， etc.

3.7 Unconscious and Conscious Acquisition

According to the acquisition-learning hypothesis of Krashens Monitor Mode， childrens L1 acquisition is a subconscious process and children pick up their first languages naturally and unconsciously. Whereas adults SLA is a conscious learning and attention is essential for it to occur.

3.8 Input

Leaners receive two sorts of information： positive and negative evidence. The former “refers to that limited set of （generally） well-formed utterances to which learners are exposed”. The negative evidence or correction means “information provided to a learner that her or his utterance is deviant in some way” （Gass & Selinker， 2008， p.346）. Negative evidence is not often observed and not necessary in childrens L1 acquisition. Adults receive more correction than children under the formal learning circumstances， and correction is the essential condition in adults SLA.

Whats more， the input available to adults in SLA is very limited and divorces from reality. Many linguists argued that “the class was the primary source of comprehensible input” （Krashen， 1982， p.35）. In classrooms， adults SLA in classrooms focus more forms than content. It is not easy to develop communicative competence of target language. While the input for children in the L1 acquisition comes from their parents or caretakers. Caretaker speech is “very consistent with the input hypothesis”， because it is roughly-tuned but comprehensible and effective （p.22）. Caretaker speech or motherese is simple， repetitive， pleasant and authentic， which is very useful for children to acquire first languages.

4. Implications

The implications can be derived from the similarities and differences especially in both tasks. Several pedagogical strategies are suggested as following：

（1）Natural order. Make the teaching syllabus suitable for learners acquisition order and sequence.

（2）Imitation and analogy. Children acquire their first languages via imitation and analogy. Adults learn a second language through problem-solving. So in English teaching， imitation and repetition could be a good strategy for learners.

（3）Comprehensible input. To know learners current language competence， make learners expose to the input beyond the current language level slightly （1 + i） and provide more positive evidence.

（4）Environment. Creating a relaxed and pleasant environment is necessary in class. Moreover， a silent period should be allowed in the classroom because silent period is necessary for language development.

（5）Error correction. It is not a special case that children produce imperfect utterances during the development， for example， babbling and telegraphic sentences. However， the imperfect utterances did not prevent communications. On the contrast， children improve language gradually by assimilation and accommodation in communications. So it is significant for EFL teachers to distinguish errors from mistakes of learners. Error belongs to language competence and it takes place occasionally. While the mistake is under the category of language performance and it occurs systematically. In order to keep learners steady motivated， teachers can learn from mothers and give priority to strategy of encouragement on learners errors.

（6）Attention-drawing. Visual input enhancement and learners output can be used to draw learners attention. Learners output， an internal attention-drawing technique， “constitutes not just the product of acquisition or the means by which to practice ones language for greater fluency but also a potentially important causal factor in the acquisition process （p. 545）.” In addition， on condition that learners are provided comprehensible input and high problem consciousness in the output， learners will have more focus on the input followed； Learners may pay more attention on the expression of target language （Izumi， 2002）.

5. Conclusion

On the basis of language acquisition theories， the paper has discussed the similarities and especially differences between childrens L1 acquisition and adults SLA. Similarity can be found in development patterns and following in natural orders but different in various ways. The implications derived from similarities and differences can be used in EFL classroom to improve teaching effect， for example， making a syllabus according to language acquisition natural order， providing comprehensible input， creating relaxed learning environments， using strategies of error correction and attention drawing.

References：

[1]Brown，R.A first language.Cambridge[M].MA：Harvard University Press，1973.

[2]Ellis，R.The study of second language acquisition[M].Oxford：Oxford University Press，1994.

[3]Ellis，R.The Study of Second Language Acquisition[M].Shanghai： Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press，1999.

[4]Flege，J.E.，Yeni-Komshian，G.E.，and Liu，S.Age constraints on second[J].1999.

[5]language acquisition[J].Journal of Memory and Language，41：78- 104.

[6]Gass，S.&Selinker;，L.Second Language Acquisition：An Introductory Course[J].（3rd ed.）.UK：Routledge，2008.

[7]Han，Z.H.Fossilization in adult second language acquisition[J].Clevedon，UK：Multilingual Matters，2004.

[8]Hutauruk.B.S.Children First Language Acquisition At Age 1-3 Years Old In Balata.IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science （IOSR-JHSS），2015，20（8）：51-57.

[9]Izumi，S.Output， input enhancement， and the noticing hypothesis： an experimental study on ESL relativization[J].Studies in Second Language Acquisition，2002，24（4）：541-577.

[10]Krashen，S.Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Pergamon Press Inc，1982.

[11]Lenneberg，E.Biological foundations of language[J].New York：John Wiley and Sons，1967.

[12]Selinker，L.Interlanguage[J].International Review of Applied Linguistics，1972，10，209-241.

[13]Skehan，P.Individual Differences in Second-Language Learning[J]. London：Edward Arnold，1989.

[14]White，L.Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar [M].UK：Cambridge University Press，2003.